I find it inconcievable that you have the gall to say your model is
better than the what is currently used when you have no understanding
of the models used in physics or the mathematics required to understand
them.

Exaggerations in these sci.ngs will get you nowhere except

into the Stooge's circle, and that is only into the first level. I
find it inconceivable that you have the unmitigated gall to say
I have no understanding of models or their related math when
you are unable to understand my model on the basis it has no
math in it, and so you refuse to read what it says.

Tell us, Eric, how it is possible for you to say I have no under-
standing of physics models when you are unable to read my
understanding of them? If you cannot understand any model
presented to you sans math, then you can only understand
those proofed by math, and the whole world knows math is too
limited to be regarded as representative of reality. By your own
statements, you claim you only believe in models concocted
from the fairytales math can give us and not in any models that
are closer to reality than math can take you. Logically, that
shows your world is topsy-turvy from reality, yet you believe
your world is the one real world, just like religious fanatics see
their world as the one where the only real god exists.

Your "model" is nothing of the sort. It makes no empirical predictions.

I've told you before, that's what the Stooges claim, but it's
not true. Neither is it true that nothing is a model if it contains
no "empirical predictions", whatever you mean by that.

OK, so let's see here. You don't know what he means by empirical
predictions ("whatever you mean by that") but you are confident your
model makes them. This is sort of like someone pointing out to that
your PWC is missing a coupling capacitor and you saying, "Don't be
silly, it's not missing a coupling capacitor, whatever that is."

Be sure to include explanations of how math is an "empirical
prediction" and how that term is not an oxymoron. This
could be your chance to win your title back. Your supporters
are counting on you - don't let them down! (You know how
easily they can turn on you, right?)

Quote:

No, math is easy, because it is rote memorization, like
learning the multiplication tables. Math is a step-by-step
process, and as such, it requires little brainwork com-
pared to reasonble thinking. It is harder for those who
can't memorize as well as others, so they don't do well in
schools where memory skills are rewarded over original
thinking.

You confuse arithmetic with mathematics, TomGee. Ever complete a
mathematical proof? Ever? Even in the 9th grade?

My my PD, you must want your title back really badly. Let's

see now, arithmetic is basic math, containing all the operators
of mathematics. Tell us, PD, how in your exalted mathematics
you use other operators not used in arithmetic that makes it
distinct from arithmetic?

And your little question above puts you back into the running
because it shows your argument has to do with who knows
more math than you, even though I long ago conceded that
I know little math. To you, that was a mistake on my part
that allows you to argue that since you know more math than
I do, you know more about everything than I do. I think any
real debater knows I said that as a bait to see if you were
vain enough to add that to your armory for when you have no
good answers. You've used that so often I've lost count of
how many times you have had no good answers.

It helped you win the title Chief Stooge the first tme, and you
are thinking it can't hurt your chances now. You're right about
that, it can't hurt.

Quote:

Math allows physical theories to make predictions.

That's just what you have been taught, but predictions were
being made long before math was invented.

Good, then name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

As I have told you but you apparently do not agree with, the history
science is that of innocent children exposing the nakedness of the
inhabitants of the highest ivory towers. Scientific progress comes
more often from those who buck the current trends of conformist
science than from those who support conformity.

Really? Name two.

Distraction attempt noted.

Those who kept
the dream alive are the heros of mankind, not the ones who tried
to stifle the human mind with their conformist nonsense.

Relativistic momentum - remember that equation i "didn't know'? Well I
did, and if you use that webpage and put v = 1 (as it is in units of c)
see what you get for the momentum of a photon....

Relativity is a subset of reality that excludes the reality of abs.

motion, Paddlebutt, so your so-called "relativistic momentum"
equation is a figment of your imagination, invented in the arm
of Theoretical Physics, a branch of physics that disdains
empirical research. You did not even know that untill I told you
about it. The Stooges argued that was untrue until they read up
on that. I have heard no more about that since.

There is no such thing as "Relativistic momentum". That is
only possible by disdaining the fact of the motion of objects
wrt the universe, and once you do that, you have stepped
away from reality and into the fairytale world of mathematics.

You Stooges cannot say a single word unless you can argue
from your fictional base of Relativity. Once that is taken away
from you, you are struck dumb. Thus, everything you say has
to conform with the un-reality you espouse to no end. If I am
wrong about that, you have only to face the facts of reality and
show that I am wrong in my interpretations of it. So long as
you continue to argue your fictional "facts", you are not talking
about the real world.

Relativistic momentum - remember that equation i "didn't know'? Well I
did, and if you use that webpage and put v = 1 (as it is in units of c)
see what you get for the momentum of a photon....

Relativity is a subset of reality that excludes the reality of abs.
motion, Paddlebutt, so your so-called "relativistic momentum"
equation is a figment of your imagination, invented in the arm
of Theoretical Physics, a branch of physics that disdains
empirical research. You did not even know that untill I told you
about it. The Stooges argued that was untrue until they read up
on that. I have heard no more about that since.

HAHAHAHA Absolute bollocks TG. I knew about that before you were
posting to USENET, you maroon!

Quote:

There is no such thing as "Relativistic momentum". That is
only possible by disdaining the fact of the motion of objects
wrt the universe, and once you do that, you have stepped
away from reality and into the fairytale world of mathematics.

But yet it is experimentally verified, unlike your bollocks...

Quote:

You Stooges cannot say a single word unless you can argue
from your fictional base of Relativity. Once that is taken away
from you, you are struck dumb. Thus, everything you say has
to conform with the un-reality you espouse to no end. If I am
wrong about that, you have only to face the facts of reality and
show that I am wrong in my interpretations of it. So long as
you continue to argue your fictional "facts", you are not talking
about the real world.

I find it inconcievable that you have the gall to say your model is
better than the what is currently used when you have no understanding
of the models used in physics or the mathematics required to understand
them.

Exaggerations in these sci.ngs will get you nowhere except
into the Stooge's circle, and that is only into the first level. I
find it inconceivable that you have the unmitigated gall to say
I have no understanding of models or their related math when
you are unable to understand my model on the basis it has no
math in it, and so you refuse to read what it says.

If your model is unable to be expressed in a mathematical form I CANNOT
MAKE QUANITATIVE PREDICTIONS.

You know....actual numbers! Your logical reasoning plus whatever it is
you think you do is all well and good but it has no place in physics if
it can't give me a number to calculate then check against experiment.

The fact people (not just me) keep telling you this and the fact you
keep not understanding it is a good sign you are completely ignorant
about anything in physics.

Quote:

Tell us, Eric, how it is possible for you to say I have no under-
standing of physics models when you are unable to read my
understanding of them? If you cannot understand any model
presented to you sans math, then you can only understand
those proofed by math, and the whole world knows math is too
limited to be regarded as representative of reality. By your own
statements, you claim you only believe in models concocted
from the fairytales math can give us and not in any models that
are closer to reality than math can take you. Logically, that
shows your world is topsy-turvy from reality, yet you believe
your world is the one real world, just like religious fanatics see
their world as the one where the only real god exists.

Wow tom, you sure convinced me! Yet another person on this newsgroup
attempts to teach physics to physicists who have been studying (in
actual universities from actual textbooks) the subject for years while
making allusions to how the physicist's belief is religious in nature.

Give me a fucking break, tom. You have no experience with the
mathematics that are required to understand the models used in physics
properly, nor do you have any experience with the models themselves
outside Encarta. You can rage against physics all you want, and you can
create as many new models as you want but if someone asks you to
calculate something and you look at them and shrug your shoulders you
are going to be rightfully mocked and then ignored.

Keep raging against mathematics, tom. It is funny. All it proves to me
and others is that a long time ago you attempted to learn physics and
couldn't pass calc 1.

Please keep writing long, long paragraphs about topics you do not
understand. It always gets a giggle out of me when I see someone
pontificate endlessly about something they don't have the faintest clue
about.

tomgee wrote:
Your former Chief Stooge is gaining on you, Piddlequack. Surely
you can come up with something better that? Or maybe not, does
anyone really care who's on top or who's on back, PD or PTP?

Science isn't a race or a competition TG. Neither is pointing out your glaring
lack of ability.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Your former Chief Stooge is gaining on you, Piddlequack. Surely
you can come up with something better that? Or maybe not, does
anyone really care who's on top or who's on back, PD or PTP?
Science isn't a race or a competition TG. Neither is pointing out your glaring
lack of ability.

But it is fun.

That goes without saying hehehe

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
PWNED

Relativistic momentum - remember that equation i "didn't know'? Well I
did, and if you use that webpage and put v = 1 (as it is in units of c)
see what you get for the momentum of a photon....

Relativity is a subset of reality that excludes the reality of abs.
motion, Paddlebutt, so your so-called "relativistic momentum"
equation is a figment of your imagination, invented in the arm
of Theoretical Physics, a branch of physics that disdains
empirical research. You did not even know that untill I told you
about it. The Stooges argued that was untrue until they read up
on that. I have heard no more about that since.

HAHAHAHA Absolute bollocks TG. I knew about that before you were
posting to USENET, you maroon!

Then why did you not speak up when PD and the other Stooges

argued otherwise?

Quote:

There is no such thing as "Relativistic momentum". That is
only possible by disdaining the fact of the motion of objects
wrt the universe, and once you do that, you have stepped
away from reality and into the fairytale world of mathematics.

But yet it is experimentally verified, unlike your bollocks...

No, it isn't. It would only be "mathematically verified", if

there really was such a thing. If you know of any
experiment that has verified that nonsense, post a quote
from it here so we can have a good laugh.

Quote:

You Stooges cannot say a single word unless you can argue
from your fictional base of Relativity. Once that is taken away
from you, you are struck dumb. Thus, everything you say has
to conform with the un-reality you espouse to no end. If I am
wrong about that, you have only to face the facts of reality and
show that I am wrong in my interpretations of it. So long as
you continue to argue your fictional "facts", you are not talking
about the real world.

VERGON
p = mv gamma. That's Einstein's equation for momentum at all speeds.
(TomGee) Thing 2 PTP didn't know.
You two lovebirds said this earlier in the thread. Obviously neither of
you have calculated p = mv gamma for v=c

Relativistic momentum - remember that equation i "didn't know'? Well I
did, and if you use that webpage and put v = 1 (as it is in units of c)
see what you get for the momentum of a photon....

Relativity is a subset of reality that excludes the reality of abs.
motion, Paddlebutt, so your so-called "relativistic momentum"
equation is a figment of your imagination, invented in the arm
of Theoretical Physics, a branch of physics that disdains
empirical research. You did not even know that untill I told you
about it. The Stooges argued that was untrue until they read up
on that. I have heard no more about that since.
HAHAHAHA Absolute bollocks TG. I knew about that before you were
posting to USENET, you maroon!

Then why did you not speak up when PD and the other Stooges
argued otherwise?

Because I jumped in the thread late. My time machine is currently in the repairers.

Quote:

There is no such thing as "Relativistic momentum". That is
only possible by disdaining the fact of the motion of objects
wrt the universe, and once you do that, you have stepped
away from reality and into the fairytale world of mathematics.

You can repeat the lie ad nauseum, but the truth is there in black and white.
You have no maths knowledge, and your pitiful lack of knowledge re Noethers and
energy conservation is proof of it.

Quote:

But yet it is experimentally verified, unlike your bollocks...

No, it isn't. It would only be "mathematically verified", if
there really was such a thing. If you know of any
experiment that has verified that nonsense, post a quote
from it here so we can have a good laugh.

You Stooges cannot say a single word unless you can argue
from your fictional base of Relativity. Once that is taken away
from you, you are struck dumb. Thus, everything you say has
to conform with the un-reality you espouse to no end. If I am
wrong about that, you have only to face the facts of reality and
show that I am wrong in my interpretations of it. So long as
you continue to argue your fictional "facts", you are not talking
about the real world.

For non-relativistic objects Newton defined momentum, given the symbol p, as
the product of mass and velocity -- p = m v. When speed becomes
relativistic, we have to modify this definition -- p = gamma (mv)

Notice that this equation tells you that for any particle with a non-zero mass,
the momentum gets larger and larger as the speed gets closer to the speed of
light. Such a particle would have *infinite* *momentum* (SNICKER) if it could
reach the speed of light. Since it would take an infinite amount of force (or a
finite force acting over an infinite amount of time) to accelerate a particle
to infinite momentum, we are forced to conclude that a massive particle always
travels at speeds less than the speed of light.

Some text books will introduce the definition m0 for the mass of an object at
rest, calling this the "rest mass" and define the quantity (M = gamma m0) as
the mass of the moving object. This makes Newton's definition of momentum still
true provided you choose the correct mass. In particle physics, when we talk
about mass we always mean mass of an object at rest and we write it as m and
keep the factor of gamma explicit in the equations.

Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric
fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is
found in practice that these particles become *heavier* *and* *heavier* as the
speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for
further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute
speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands
of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the "rest mass"

Now shall we make it SPNAK 4 for you TG, or are you gonna admit your ignorance.

I find it inconcievable that you have the gall to say your model is
better than the what is currently used when you have no understanding
of the models used in physics or the mathematics required to understand
them.

Exaggerations in these sci.ngs will get you nowhere except
into the Stooge's circle, and that is only into the first level. I
find it inconceivable that you have the unmitigated gall to say
I have no understanding of models or their related math when
you are unable to understand my model on the basis it has no
math in it, and so you refuse to read what it says.

If your model is unable to be expressed in a mathematical form I CANNOT
MAKE QUANITATIVE PREDICTIONS.

Yes, I understand that's what you meant, but my model is

based on the quantitative predictions already made to
explain the observations. I am not saying those quantities
are wrong, I am saying the explanations drawn from those
numbers are wrong. You must realize the extent of your
brainwashing if it has taken you this long to understand my
point to all this!

Quote:

You know....actual numbers! Your logical reasoning plus whatever it is
you think you do is all well and good but it has no place in physics if
it can't give me a number to calculate then check against experiment.

That's only because you think physics is all numbers, which

is you have been taught by your errant teachers. You are
wrong about that and the sooner you understand that the
better you will understand science.

Quote:

The fact people (not just me) keep telling you this and the fact you
keep not understanding it is a good sign you are completely ignorant
about anything in physics.

No, that is not a good sign I am ignorant. That shows I am

more likely correct since new ideas have always been viewed
by local conformists as "not understanding of physics". So I
thank you for that encouragement.

Quote:

Tell us, Eric, how it is possible for you to say I have no under-
standing of physics models when you are unable to read my
understanding of them? If you cannot understand any model
presented to you sans math, then you can only understand
those proofed by math, and the whole world knows math is too
limited to be regarded as representative of reality. By your own
statements, you claim you only believe in models concocted
from the fairytales math can give us and not in any models that
are closer to reality than math can take you. Logically, that
shows your world is topsy-turvy from reality, yet you believe
your world is the one real world, just like religious fanatics see
their world as the one where the only real god exists.

Wow tom, you sure convinced me! Yet another person on this newsgroup
attempts to teach physics to physicists who have been studying (in
actual universities from actual textbooks) the subject for years while
making allusions to how the physicist's belief is religious in nature.

No, not yet another person, Eric, I said that from the very

beginning, long before you started posting here. I am not
attempting to teach physicists anything, I am attempting to
expose their nakedness to the world. Such attempts have
been a part of society since that fairytale was invented, at
least. You haven't been around long enough yet to know
that, so you think I am trying to teach them something.

If it were possible, I might try it. I think it is not possible, or
at least not worth the effort, to try to overcome years of
constant Pavlovian conditioning done to students by their
teachers and the educational system as practiced here and
elsewhere. After the lawyers are given their just desserts,
teachers should be next in line.

Quote:

Give me a fucking break, tom. You have no experience with the
mathematics that are required to understand the models used in physics
properly, nor do you have any experience with the models themselves
outside Encarta.

Then how can I refer to them with such pinpoint accuracy

as to what propose? You don't need to have experience
with math, unless you question its proofs, to understand
any model. In fact, it is usually better to forego the math
until you have a firm grasp of the basis and explanations
of a model before you get into the math. Your arguments
show the naivete of those who are fresh from the
Pavlovian bells classes. You are parroting those whom
you have been well-conditioned to parrot, and use their
silly arguments as if you know what they meant.

Quote:

You can rage against physics all you want, and you can
create as many new models as you want but if someone asks you to
calculate something and you look at them and shrug your shoulders you
are going to be rightfully mocked and then ignored.

I have never raged against physics, ever, and for you to

make such an accusation shows you don't know what you
are talking about nor what you have read. I rage against
the harm done to people like you by the schools that "mold"
you into what they want you to be.

I rage against the physicists who teach and argue against
new ideas without knowing what they're talking about but
react against anything that threatens the status quo.

I rage against the automatons they produce in great
numbers, like you, year after year, who grow up to
learn they have been had, but find they have also been
made to lose the will to break the chains put round their
heads.

Quote:

Keep raging against mathematics, tom. It is funny. All it proves to me
and others is that a long time ago you attempted to learn physics and
couldn't pass calc 1.

Don't rage against mathematics either, only against the

conclusions drawn from it by physicists that step outside
reality to explain observed effects. Thus you have proof
of something non-existent, and of what value is that?

Quote:

Please keep writing long, long paragraphs about topics you do not
understand. It always gets a giggle out of me when I see someone
pontificate endlessly about something they don't have the faintest clue
about.

VERGON
p = mv gamma. That's Einstein's equation for momentum at all speeds.
(TomGee) Thing 2 PTP didn't know.
You two lovebirds said this earlier in the thread. Obviously neither of
you have calculated p = mv gamma for v=c

Relativistic momentum - remember that equation i "didn't know'? Well I
did, and if you use that webpage and put v = 1 (as it is in units of c)
see what you get for the momentum of a photon....

Relativity is a subset of reality that excludes the reality of abs.
motion, Paddlebutt, so your so-called "relativistic momentum"
equation is a figment of your imagination, invented in the arm
of Theoretical Physics, a branch of physics that disdains
empirical research. You did not even know that untill I told you
about it. The Stooges argued that was untrue until they read up
on that. I have heard no more about that since.
HAHAHAHA Absolute bollocks TG. I knew about that before you were
posting to USENET, you maroon!

Then why did you not speak up when PD and the other Stooges
argued otherwise?

Because I jumped in the thread late. My time machine is currently in the repairers.

There is no such thing as "Relativistic momentum". That is
only possible by disdaining the fact of the motion of objects
wrt the universe, and once you do that, you have stepped
away from reality and into the fairytale world of mathematics.

You can repeat the lie ad nauseum, but the truth is there in black and white.
You have no maths knowledge, and your pitiful lack of knowledge re Noethers and
energy conservation is proof of it.

Mine is not a lie, yours is. You are saying that momentum can

exist without mass because you were not told it is only a fantasy
when you were given that fantasy equation. You have been so
brainwashed that you still believe it is reality and not a fairytale.

Since you believe math is reality, your math is useless because
it is not reality. So you resort to lies and to making up physics
to try to forestall the inevitable awakening to the real and the
unreal. I charge nothing for that, good riddance to brainwashing.

You evidently believe I am lying about math not being represent-
ative of reality, and no one here has said that in a very long time.
I guess you never learned that getting your hypothetical PHd, or
perhaps they forgot to mention it to you. You really and truly
believe that math is real and representative, without question, of
reality, eh? Either you're super-stupid or a born Stooge, and I
see no possiblility of helping you overcome either or both.

Quote:

But yet it is experimentally verified, unlike your bollocks...

No, it isn't. It would only be "mathematically verified", if
there really was such a thing. If you know of any
experiment that has verified that nonsense, post a quote
from it here so we can have a good laugh.

"we can already express the energy and momentum of photons, and using
Einstein's equation for the relativistic energy of a particle we can calculate
the energy of the electron sitting in the atom."

If by "relativistic energy", he means the energy of a mass disregarding

the energy accruing to it due to its motion, that is no different than
E=mc^2, which is a subset of the reality of abs. motion, and as such,
it is somewhat short of reality. As I've said, it is a great tool, but
it is
not representative of reality, and to think that it is, is quite
foolish.

He refers to E=mc^2 as AE's equation for the relativistic energy of a
particle, and so using it to calculate an electron's energy is just one

more way to use our math tool. He does not refer to the total energy
of the particle, however, since the relativistic energy leaves out the
energy of an object's momentum which accrues to it due to its motion.

You Stooges cannot say a single word unless you can argue
from your fictional base of Relativity. Once that is taken away
from you, you are struck dumb. Thus, everything you say has
to conform with the un-reality you espouse to no end. If I am
wrong about that, you have only to face the facts of reality and
show that I am wrong in my interpretations of it. So long as
you continue to argue your fictional "facts", you are not talking
about the real world.

You can repeat the lie ad nauseum, but the truth is there in black and
white.
You have no maths knowledge, and your pitiful lack of knowledge re Noethers
and
energy conservation is proof of it.

Mine is not a lie, yours is. You are saying that momentum can
exist without mass because you were not told it is only a fantasy
when you were given that fantasy equation. You have been so
brainwashed that you still believe it is reality and not a fairytale.

Yawn. Where you once the propaganda minister for Saddam Hussein by any
chance? Because you share the same knack of repeating a lie and
believing it..

"There is no relativistic momentum in the world! We resist this
ludicrous fantasy world of physics. Our logic will prevail!"

Quote:

Since you believe math is reality, your math is useless because
it is not reality. So you resort to lies and to making up physics
to try to forestall the inevitable awakening to the real and the
unreal. I charge nothing for that, good riddance to brainwashing.

The math is always used as a model of reality - a mirror darkly. Your
alternative is to go back to alchemy and magic. The "lies" you proclaim
work, whereas I have heard nothing from you that explains anything.

Quote:

You evidently believe I am lying about math not being represent-
ative of reality, and no one here has said that in a very long time.
I guess you never learned that getting your hypothetical PHd, or
perhaps they forgot to mention it to you. You really and truly
believe that math is real and representative, without question, of
reality, eh? Either you're super-stupid or a born Stooge, and I
see no possiblility of helping you overcome either or both.

See above. Model of reality. I don't believe in magic, unicorns,
fairy's or the twisted world view you espouse.

Quote:

But yet it is experimentally verified, unlike your bollocks...

No, it isn't. It would only be "mathematically verified", if
there really was such a thing. If you know of any
experiment that has verified that nonsense, post a quote
from it here so we can have a good laugh.

"we can already express the energy and momentum of photons, and using
Einstein's equation for the relativistic energy of a particle we can
calculate
the energy of the electron sitting in the atom."

If by "relativistic energy", he means the energy of a mass disregarding

the energy accruing to it due to its motion, that is no different than
E=mc^2, which is a subset of the reality of abs. motion, and as such,
it is somewhat short of reality. As I've said, it is a great tool, but
it is
not representative of reality, and to think that it is, is quite
foolish.

"OK you got me there, so I will backpedal furiously"

So you keep saying - it doesn't make it true.

Quote:

He refers to E=mc^2 as AE's equation for the relativistic energy of a
particle, and so using it to calculate an electron's energy is just one

more way to use our math tool. He does not refer to the total energy
of the particle, however, since the relativistic energy leaves out the
energy of an object's momentum which accrues to it due to its motion.

Does he actually use that term "relativistic momentum" in there?
If so, why did you not quote it?

Relativistic effects used to calculate lifetime of particles.

Quote:

You Stooges cannot say a single word unless you can argue
from your fictional base of Relativity. Once that is taken away
from you, you are struck dumb. Thus, everything you say has
to conform with the un-reality you espouse to no end. If I am
wrong about that, you have only to face the facts of reality and
show that I am wrong in my interpretations of it. So long as
you continue to argue your fictional "facts", you are not talking
about the real world.

You're happily stupid, too, since I plainly said "You Stooges", to
show that I did not refer only to you. You Stooges cannot even
read at hs level!

You must be a troll, as no-one can honestly be this stupid and breathe unaided.

Getting your goat, eh? You thought you could come in here and
make short of me and my ideas, even when you saw the Stooges
couldn't make a dent. Run away as you claim others have done,
fool, you're no match for me.

I've spanked you several times, and heading for another. You're just
too damn stupid to see it. Just cause you failed to ge into college you
think you can belittle those who actually want to learn. And even
worse, you berate those that do as "conformists" because they don't
listen to the utter rubbish you push.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
PWNED